SKE: "Man. Woman. Child."I'm just a regular
middle-aged straight guy, not particularly well connected with the gay
community, but without thinking too hard I can rattle off close to a dozen gay
couple acquaintances with children, some by adoption, but also via sperm
donation, IVF, surrogacy, and previous hetero marriages. Conversely, I know
several straight couples childless due to fertility issues. If procreation and
child welfare are your arguments against gay marriage, why are the former denied
marriage while the latter are not? Shouldn't the children of gay couples
have the many documented benefits that come from having married parents?
Otherwise, aren't you condemning those children to the social dysfunctions
that accrue to children of unmarried parents? How does that improve child
To Stephen Kent Ehat 8:03 p.m. Dec. 7, 2012Man. Woman. Child.-----------------------Man. woman. Can't
conceive/establish/gestate a pregnancy (for many reasons inluding infertility
due to, among other things, age and medical issues). Would you also dey them
the right to marry?
Let's hope the court ends discrimination once and for all. Thankfully we
live in a country that tends to move toward acceptance and justice for all
(although painfully slow at times - just look at how long it took for African
Americans to gain equality). As more and more people get to know
there gay family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, they realize that they
are no different than them. They have the same needs and desires to fall in
love and marry that person. The fact that millions of dollars have been spent
on denying two consenting adults who love each other the right to get married is
pretty disheartening, especially when there are so many REAL issues that that
need to be tackled. Those millions could have been spent to fight poverty,
child labor, children without a home, addiction, pollution, etc.
@SammyThe slippery slope argument? Really?
Man. Woman. Child.
This could open up a whole can of worms if the court decides in favor of gay
marriage. The next logical step will be polygamy and then the
Colorado City / Hilldale decisions against the fundamentalists, restitution and
the list goes on and on.It will be quite interesting to see our
country tailspin faster and faster.
@ alt134: States have always defined marriage and even without same-sex
marriage there have been different rules in different states and the Federal
Government has always recognized all marriages from the states even if another
state would not have allowed that marriage (such as marriages between first
cousins).This is actually the main argument against the portion of
DOMA that is being challenged and there is no reason to believe that a practice
that is applied to heterosexual relationships would be unconstitutional when
applied to same-sex marriages.
Man. Man. Woman. Woman. Man. Woman. To fear love is to fear life, and
those who fear life are already three parts dead.Bertrand Russell
Kennedy will be the swing vote like usual. He has seemed to be more willing to
support gay rights. I would expect a 5-4 (maybe 6-3 if Roberts wants
to go with the majority) striking down Prop 8 but using that weird appeals court
ruling logic of "California had it and then banned it, you can't take
it away" to justify not striking down all the other gay marriage bans in the
nation.I'm not sure what to expect on DOMA since the
middle-road thing (federal recognition of SSM in states that allow it)
doesn't seem particularly constitutional itself.
Not mormon myself, but I stand with the Mormons on this!